Leonard Dinnerstein and the Making of a Leo Frank Orthodoxy

The 1968 published book The Leo Frank Case was an outgrowth of a PhD thesis by Leonard Dinnerstein, born May 5, 1934, who completed his dissertation on the subject in 1966 at Columbia University for the Department of Political Science.

The book The Leo Frank Case has evolved slightly over the last 50 years with the release of revised editions. It was first published by Columbia University Press in 1968. A paperback edition was later released by the University of Georgia Press in 1987 and 1999.

A high-production-value version of the book was produced as the Notable Trials Library edition in 1991, with information about the Alonzo Mann affair in 1913 and 1982 to 1986. A recent revised edition was distributed in 2008, and it is possible that further revised editions will be published.

The Academic Machinery Behind the Pro-Frank Narrative

Under the guise of academic scholarship, multiplying across generations since about the 1950s, Jewish activists have written books and research articles about the murder case of Mary Phagan and the trial of Leo Frank. These works are stridently biased toward convincing the reader that Leo Frank was falsely prosecuted because of antisemitism. These professorial and journalistic treatments are often derivative, meaning they quote and cite largely other related works that promote the agenda of convincing people that Leo Frank was innocent. In these examples, primary sources are cherry-picked for this purpose.

Unfortunately, even after 50 years of studying the Leo Frank case, republishing new book editions, and producing various articles on the subject, Leonard Dinnerstein gives the reader only a narrow, biased, and short-sighted version of the Leo Frank trial, appeals, and aftermath. Leo Frank’s 1913 conviction for the murder of Mary Phagan has always been a very divisive historical event, with camps typically divided and crystallized along diametrically opposed Jewish and Gentile lines.

The Jewish community has gone to Promethean lengths over the last century to rehabilitate the image of Leo Frank and to attempt to exonerate him in the collective consciousness of popular culture through every kind of medium.

The Counter-Position: Trial Evidence, Legal Review, and the Verdict

Gentiles often take the position that Leo Frank made an admission at his trial on the forenoon of August 18, 1913, sustaining his conviction well beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, they believe the death sentence rendered against him was correct, given the severity of the rape, strangulation, and mutilation of the child victim.

Slaton’s Commutation and the Crisis of Public Legitimacy

The lynching of Leo Frank was conducted against the backdrop of a death-sentence commutation to life in prison for the convict, ordered by the outgoing governor of Georgia, John Marshall Slaton, on June 21, 1915. At the time, the gross conflict of interest enraged the public to a fevered pitch. Multitudes of Georgians believed the execution of Leo Frank, two months later, on August 17, 1915, was choreographed as a quasi-state-sanctioned and legitimate hanging. Because Governor Slaton was a senior member and equal-share owner of the law firm Rosser, Brandon, Slaton and Phillips, which represented Leo Frank at his trial and subsequent appeals, the public belief that Slaton’s order of clemency was unconstitutional permeated the supermajority.

The Pro-Frank Martyrdom Narrative

For the last century, the vast majority of Jews have taken the “politically correct position” on the Leo Frank affair, namely that Leo was an innocent martyr of religious bigotry and a stoic Jew framed in a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy as a result of an innately prejudiced and racist Southern culture united against Jews. Furthermore, the contemporary Jewish version of the Leo Frank case takes the position that Leo Frank’s admitted accomplice after the fact, a semi-literate janitor named James “Jim” Conley, was really the culprit. Jewish activists believe Conley duped the judge, jury, court system, police, and prosecutor, and thereby framed the well-educated, clean-cut, Ivy League-educated “Yankee Jew.” Though the term “Yankee Jew” was never recorded as being used by those who were supposedly duped, this projection continues to be made perennially.

Jewish historians and authors, for more than a century, have created a Leo Frank intellectual movement with cultish zealousness that persists today, making the absurd assertion that the lynching of Leo Frank was mostly animated by the idea that “the blood of a guilty Negro” was not enough to atone for the murder of a child, and that an innocent Jew had to pay the price.

How Media Repetition Became Historical Memory

Through media agitation, the Jewish position on the Leo Frank case has become the predominant version of what allegedly happened between 1913 and 1915, beginning with the Mary Phagan murder investigation, coroner’s inquest, grand jury hearing, murder trial, appeals, and aftermath.

Dinnerstein’s Role in Mainstreaming the Antisemitism Thesis

Indeed, this particular book by Leonard Dinnerstein on the Leo Frank saga can be said to have been clearly written on behalf of Leo Frank. It takes the position that he was framed because of “rampant” and “widespread” antisemitism in the American South at the time. Leonard Dinnerstein could easily be considered one of the godfathers of the Leo Frank anti-Semitic conspiracy theory cult because he capitalized on half a century of time to cultivate this assertion. The high prevalence of Jews academically pushing the Leo Frank victim theory has resulted in this political position becoming mainstream through the sheer numerical force of their biased publications.

Manufacturing consensus is how the “Leo Frank Intellectual Movement” works in changing the opinions of the masses against every level of the United States legal system. This political narrative on the Leo Frank affair by Leonard Dinnerstein has been the rallying position taken privately and publicly by the Jewish community since 1913, and it is often reflected in countless treatments produced on the case by authors who reference Dinnerstein as a reliable source.

The Legal Record Versus the Rehabilitation Campaign

The “Jewish position,” however, is in direct conflict with the “Gentile position,” along with every level of the United States legal system, which ruled that the Frank trial was fair and that the testimony, along with the evidence against Leo Frank, was sufficient to convict him. No government tribunal ever called to review the Leo Frank case from 1913 to 1986 disturbed the verdict of guilt rendered unanimously against Leo Frank by the presiding trial judge, Leonard Strickland Roan, and a jury of 12 men.

The Admission Problem: Leo Frank’s Own Trial Statement

Most open-minded people who read and study the 1913 trial Brief of Evidence are able to connect the dots between State’s Exhibit B, concerning when Leo Frank said Mary Phagan arrived in his office at roughly 12:07 p.m.; the testimony of Monteen Stover about Leo Frank’s office being empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m.; and Leo Frank’s August 18, 1913, trial statement directly responding to Monteen Stover’s testimony about why his office was empty between 12:05 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. Leo Frank responded with an “unconscious” bathroom visit to the metal room. Oddly enough, Leo Frank put himself alone at the scene of the crime at the time the murder was committed, but even then, he continued to claim innocence.

What the Revisionist Literature Leaves Out

Alas, the major problem with the pro-Frank revisionist position taken by some authors is that they are unable to maintain the “Jewish position on Leo Frank” while also providing a clear picture of the specific evidence presented at the trial, because many incidents documented during the Mary Phagan murder investigation were highly incriminating of Leo Frank. You seldom find this incriminating evidence discussed in pro-Frank books.

The Cult of Leo Frank: Reverence in Place of Evidence

When reading books, magazine articles, or news retellings that broadcast the pro-Frank partisan or revisionist narrative, one finds that they tend to leave out volumes of facts, evidence, circumstances, situations, incidents, and testimony documented in the official legal records against Leo Frank. They replace them instead with rumors, misrepresentations, hoaxes, half-truths, and fabrications. You never get the full story of what really happened when you read a book on the Leo Frank case that takes the position that he was innocent.

Pierre van Paassen and the Architecture of a Historical Hoax

In 1964, Pierre van Paassen published several dramatic hoaxes in his autobiography of tall tales and fantastic adventures, To Number Our Days, about supposedly discovering X-ray photos of Mary Phagan with bite marks on her neck and left shoulder, along with corresponding X-ray photographs of Leo Frank’s teeth that did not match the bite marks.

Van Paassen’s Claim of Secret Photographic Proof

Excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen’s alleged finding of photographic evidence at the court archives, pages 237 and 238:

“The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building.”

The hoaxer was unaware that Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in 1913, nor was his trial in Milledgeville, Georgia. Leo Frank was lynched in Marietta in 1915 and had already gone through the state and federal appellate courts.

“Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime. I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.”

What the Grand Jury Vote Reveals

Grand jury: Although only a majority of 12 votes was necessary to indict Leo Frank, all 21 jurors who were present voted for his indictment, without exception. Several Atlanta Jews, some of them prominent members of the Jewish community, were among those who cast ballots at the conclusion of that legal proceeding, which was officiated by Judge W. D. Ellis. One local newspaper report during the period stated that about four out of five citizens of Georgia believed Leo Frank was guilty, and it was not an unfair belief considering that the testimony of the coroner’s inquest had been published in the three local press organs of the capital. Therefore, it was not a monolithic opinion at the time that Leo Frank was innocent among members of the Jewish community.

The Bite-Wound Story and Its Forensic Implausibility

Mary Phagan Bite-Wound Hoax: Van Paassen’s allegation in 1964 about an event occurring four decades earlier, in the early 1920s, is incredible and anti-science. The autopsy report and physician testimony at the Leo Frank trial never once mentioned bite wounds on the victim, Mary Phagan. X-ray technology was in early development in 1913, and even 100 years later, in the 21st century, it is ineffective to X-ray bite wounds or teeth to compare them. The correct procedure, had the dubious claim been true, would have been to make a three-dimensional teeth mold to obtain the impression prints of Leo Frank’s mouth. An X-ray would largely show a side view of the teeth, whereas a mold of his teeth would show the actual bite prints. No one other than Van Paassen ever mentions this false evidence in the historical record, before or after him, though Leo Frank hoaxers repeat this allegation as “proof” that the homicidal pedophile was innocent.

The “Harry Alexander” Error and the Myth of a Suppressed Exposé

“Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested.”

Leo Frank hoaxer Pierre van Paassen believes Leo Frank never had a trial. He is oblivious to the fact that the convict did actually have a 1913 trial in Atlanta and that the presiding judge, Leonard Roan, refused a request for a new trial. The Supreme Court of Georgia also rejected a request for a new trial and ruled that the evidence at the Frank trial sustained a guilty verdict. The prominent Jewish lawyer was named Henry, not Harry.

The Streetcar Incident: A Tall Tale in Search of Evidence

“Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles, old resentments might be stirred up and who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community. That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.’ The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....”

Fantastic Fiction Posing as Historical Memory

Anti-Science: Pierre van Paassen’s story is fantastic fiction that never occurred. A head-on collision with another vehicle would not have allowed him to escape without a scratch. Everything about his story is a series of falsehoods and lies.

The 1964 Pierre van Paassen hoax is one example of the many frauds perpetuated by the Leo Frank Intellectual Movement of pro-Leo Frank authors, including Harry Golden, Leonard Dinnerstein, Steve Oney, Elaine Marie Alphin, Donald E. Wilkes, Jeffrey Paul Melnick, and others. See To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen, 1964, pp. 237–238.

The Cost of Defending the Pro-Frank Revisionist Line

The problem resulting from trying to maintain the integrity of the pro-Frank revisionist position on the Leo Frank trial and appeals is that, in doing so, one is unable to explore the curious and interesting depths of the official record. The facts, evidence, and testimony in the case appear to be intentionally omitted by people perpetuating the “Jewish persecution position,” because these censored elements tend to sustain the conviction of Leo Frank.

Bibliography

Leonard Dinnerstein, “Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community” (1968):
https://archive.org/details/american-jewish-archive-journal-volume-20-number-2-leo-m-frank-and-the-american-

Leonard Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case (1966 doctoral dissertation, Columbia University):
https://archive.org/details/leonard-dinnerstein-dissertation-leo-frank-case-1966-columbia-university-polysci

Leonard Dinnerstein, The Leo Frank Case (1968 book and later editions):
https://archive.org/details/TheLeoFrankCaseByLeonardDinnerstein

Pierre van Paassen, To Number Our Days (see pages 237 and 238 for the Leo Frank discussion):
https://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen

Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913, uploaded to Internet Archive by Sarah Cohen on January 27, 2011:
https://archive.org/details/LeoM.FrankPlaintiffInErrorVs.StateOfGeorgiaDefendantInError.In

Georgia Supreme Court Clerk. (1914). Leo Frank trial appeal Georgia Supreme Court, 1818 slides [Court records]. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/leo-frank-trial-appeal-georgia-supreme-court-records-1913-1914

Phagan Kean, M. (1987). The murder of little Mary Phagan, First Edition (made public domain by the author) [Digital archive item]. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/TheMurderOfLittleMaryPhaganByMaryPhaganKean1987

Lawson, J. D. (Ed.). (1918). American state trials: Volume X. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/american-state-trials-1918-volume-x-john-lawson

Koenigsberg, A. (2013). The Leo Frank case: Open or closed? Internet Archive Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.leofrankcase.com/

Dorsey, H. M. (1914). Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey, solicitor-general, Atlanta Judicial Circuit, at the trial of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan [Digital archive item]. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/ArgumentsOfHughM.DorseyInTheLeoFrankMurderTrial

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Libraries. (2026). The Thomas E. Watson Papers Digital Collection. Documenting the American South. https://docsouth.unc.edu/watson/

Brown, T. W. (1982). Summary of Leo Frank case and its aftermath [Archival object]. Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, Emory University. https://archives.libraries.emory.edu/repositories/7/archival_objects/110681 

Note: This replaces the dead Archive.org item for Tom W. Brown’s notes. Emory’s record identifies the archival object as “Summary of Leo Frank Case and Its Aftermath.”

Emory University Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library. (n.d.). Leo Frank research files. Emory University. https://archives.libraries.emory.edu/repositories/7/resources/2445

Note: This is the broader Emory institutional collection for Leo Frank research files.

Georgia Archives. (1913). Leo M. Frank vs. The State of Georgia, first appeal. Georgia Archives. https://vault.georgiaarchives.org/digital/collection/adhoc/id/4838/

Note: The Georgia Archives site requires JavaScript, but the item page itself is the institutional record.

Georgia Archives. (1914). Leo M. Frank vs. The State of Georgia, second appeal. Georgia Archives. https://vault.georgiaarchives.org/digital/collection/adhoc/id/5384/

Note: Use this together with the first and third appeal records when citing the Georgia Supreme Court appeal material.

Digital Library of Georgia. (1914). Leo M. Frank vs. The State of Georgia, Supreme Court Case A-34519, third appeal. Digital Library of Georgia. https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gaarchives_adhoc_6302

plus-circle Add Review

comment

Reviews (2)